Nuclear Issues

While Washington and the media were preoccupied with James Comey hearings and Donald Trump press conferences this week, what else was going on that we didn't hear about? Or, ought to be paying closer attention to? The World's Marco Werman talked to Nick Burns to find out. 

There has been much public criticism concerning European counterterrorism failings in the wake of the Paris and Brussels attacks. It has been widely reported in the media that the US intelligence community was well aware of clear deficiencies in this regard. In fact, after the Paris bombing, senior US officials publicly promised to provide the French with the same level of information that the US has been providing to the British for years. Such expressions of support raise a question: Why was the US not providing that level of information to the French before the Paris attacks?

It is well and good that the US and European counterterrorism partners intend to re-commit to two-way, broad information sharing on a near real time basis. For without robust information sharing as a foundation for cooperation, there is a strong possibility that threat-related information will not be passed until after the fact. The dangers of inadequate information are aggravated in the case of unprecedented attacks, because the “dots” or indicators of a plot that has never occurred would presumably be harder for analysts to identify and neutralize.

"As world leaders gather for the fourth nuclear security summit this week, in the aftermath of the horrifying terrorist attacks in Brussels, it seems likely that Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel will have more to say than anyone else — both about real nuclear terrorist dangers and about real steps taken to improve nuclear security...."

Nicholas R. Burns and David Manning, former ambassadors to NATO from their respective countries, respond to the question of whether NATO is still needed. They write: “Will you still need me when I’m sixty-four?” sang the Beatles. NATO is now in its 64th year, and in our view the answer is an unequivocal yes. The alliance still underwrites our security and underpins our prosperity. It gives us a global voice that no member state would enjoy individually. And if “it’s good to talk” in a dangerous world, there is no better trans-Atlantic forum.

"Cybersecurity is likely to overtake terrorism as the number one threat to the UK's critical infrastructure over the coming decades, even if lags behind terrorism as a threat in the public mind. This is because of the rise in access to computers and computer literacy around the globe, the relative ease and anonymity of conducting a cyber attack on critical infrastructure, the reduced risk to the protagonist compared to other forms of attack, and the fact that protagonists can attack more flexibly, quickly, and with minimal institutional preparation or a shorter decision-making process than states or formalized terrorist groups require."

"Clegg's insistence in the debate that downgrading our nuclear weapons could be a panacea for reducing the deficit came in the same week as senior officials in the Pentagon raised the alarm about Iran's progress towards acquiring nuclear weapons capability. President Obama's conference on global nuclear security helps to remind us of the urgent need for action on safeguarding the world's nuclear materials to prevent terrorists or other non-state actors from obtaining nuclear weapons. Given the financial incentives for rogue elements from international regimes to sell their knowledge for profit, the danger that such knowhow falls into the wrong hands is very real. Is it really safe to downgrade Britain's safeguard against such attacks?"

"Non-binding agreements, such as the Nuclear Summit's communiqué ... have the benefit of being developed and implemented quickly. Countries can more easily reach agreement, in the knowledge that an inability to comply will not result in harsh sanction. Yet, these agreements are not toothless, as opponents would claim. By publicly committing to adhere to the communiqué's principles, countries signal their intentions, and can damage their reputation if they fail to deliver. Many countries made national commitments in addition to the communiqué, to which they can be held accountable. For example, Ukraine committed to removing all highly enriched uranium from its territory by the next Summit in 2012. Ukraine's progress can be monitored and pressure brought to bear if its commitment is not met."